by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends
Awen -- just some more fact checking. i have not attacked anybodys intelligence for holding on to a particular belief on this thread, rather i have simply pointed out you are factually wrong on a particular point.
if you have done your research you have not done it particulary well, and i would once more suggest you take the effort to spend a few minutes on wikipedia.
i have not attacked anybodys intelligence
Yet:
"Do you even understand what independent trials mean, or did you just deside it was okay for you to ignore it?"
"Your PLOS ONE article is entirely irrelevant to the point i made and i am surpriced you mention it."
"I think its safe to say you dont have the faintest idea what independent trials mean."
"If you want to give an air of having an informed oppinion on a subject as it seem to be the case, you would do well to spend 30 seconds on wikipedia to ensure you are not confusing a technical term from elementary probability theory with a scientific theory."
"An additional 3 minutes on the article on hoyles fallacy would inform you how the number you quote is calculated and therefore why it is trivially (forgive the technical jargon) what statisticians would refer to as "bullshit"."
"and just for emphasis: even two plos-one studies on the biodiversity on earth would be irrelevant to any points made above."
Obviously, dear Awen (peace to you!), some folks... intelligent as they may be (or, more likely, think they are)... don't have a CLUE as to what an "attack" on someone's intelligence is. No worries: I'm sure they could find out... if they spent, say, 2 minutes on wikipedia... or less than that with Miss Manners.
Again, peace to you... and don't let the intelligent... but still, for all intents and purposes... idjits... get to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who is "intelligent" enough to know that book smarts doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence... or even smart... and sometimes actually makes one look absolutely stoopid... under certain circumstances... and that given the point of the thread and jist of the questions asked... that seems to be the case here...
AGuest-He didn't hide earthling man here: He created the physical man (Adham) as a vessel to hide the seed. Those he was hiding was not earthling man, but spirit beings... who, like Christ... took on the FORM of earthling man, so as to be hidden from their enemies in the spirit realm. He hid such seed here, in the physical realm. Once their location was betrayed, however, He had to hide them further. That is what the long garment of skin... the vessel of the fleshly body... does: hide the person we are ON THE INSIDE of it.
I am fascinated, and I would like to know more about the pre-adam days.
Perhaps when you have the time, on another thread
Thanks Jay
"Is it just cognitive dissonance, or is there something more to it? How is it possible for you to go on believing what you believe?"
In 1995, 20 advanced AIDS patients were enrolled in a study at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. It was a randomized, double-blind study of "distance healing." Basically, people were asked to pray for certain AIDS victims. The praying people were "experienced healers" from a variety of religious traditions. The victims did not know the healers and it was going to be a very strict test. The goal was to compare survival time of those prayed for vs. those not prayed for.
In 1995, when enrolled, victims of advanced AIDS were handed a death sentence. They expected that many, if not most of these patients would be dead in a few months to a year. But just one month into the six-month trial, a new AIDS "cocktail" drug became standard treatment for AIDS. At the end of the six-months, only 1 patient had died.
Searching the data anyway, it was discovered that those not prayed for (the control group) fared as good or even slightly better than those prayed for in 22 categories. (Originally, there was no intent to have so many categories) Finally, a 23rd category showed that those prayed for had a slight, but statistically significant enough edge, over the control group in "hospital stays and doctor visits."
Psychiatrist, Elizabeth Targ, who had initiated the study, published that 23rd result despite the fact that it was not part of the original protocols. She never mentioned that it was not part of the goals for the study.
In his book, SUPERSTITION, Robert Park describes that as "Texas sharpshooter fallacy." Fire a bullet into the side of a barn, then paint a bullseye around the bullet hole. As long as we have such willingness to ignore all the data and focus on the tiniest of remote suggestive "evidence," we will never really get through to all people.
Wow, been off this thread for a while and don't know where to pick up. Quite a lot of flaming here. However, some scientifically inaccurate statements have been made.
I will say this. I think, given the proper conditions for a sufficient length of time, life, as we understand life to be, will almost certainly arise from non-life. I agree with whoever said "99.9%." I think so too. Eventually scientific inquiry will tell me if I am correct.
I don't think a direct invervention by a supernatural being or other intelligent agent is necessary to bring about life. Non-life and life aren't all that different. The difference is one of degree, not kind. It is we humans that classify according to kind. This is just another version of the "species problem."
All through natural history we see steadily emerging complexity from simplicity. First there was a chaotic mass of matter and energy emerging from the "Big Bang". Then the disorganized matter became organized into atoms and molecules. Then, heavier elements emerged. Then cosmological structure, with galaxies, stars, and planets emerged. On a planet like ours, with the right conditions, matter became even more complex, becoming what we call "life." Life itself became more complex, and cells self arranged into multicellular organisms. Those became more complex over time, and eventually matter arranged itself into what we recognize as homo sapiens, who can think, ask, wonder, and recognize and worship the source of all things.
The process is speeding up, if we examine the history of the universe. It is accelerating. I think the process will continue, and things we can scarcely comprehend will come into being in the span of time. The Universe will become conscious. We are a link in a long chain, coming from God, and leading back to God. This is the Omega Point. The genius of God lies not in his having to act constantly to realize his will. It lies in creating a universe in an infinite instant that would unfold over time into what he willed.
And then we will say "let there be light."
Just my humble opinion.
BTS
Aguest -- still not quite over that Hawkins thing i see. For all the talk of forgiveness and peace, i am surpriced you are still there calling me an idiot*, in particular considering the obvious irony of doing so in a post where you are so hell-bound of painting me in a bad light that you attempt to present a phrase like:
" Your PLOS ONE article is entirely irrelevant to the point i made and i am surpriced you mention it."
as an attack of a persons intelligence!
the irony!
* or rather, you misspelled idiot and did it in a 3rd person kind of way, my bad, sometimes it is just hard to tell when someone is simply calling you an idiot, or calling you an idiot in a passive-agressive way.
AGuest,
I look forward to you pointing out these scriptures you mentioned. Very interesting. Just one thing I'd like to clarify - so what you are saying is Jesus is still communicating with you, and others today, in a literal way? And you get this communication how exactly?
My understanding was that Revelation was the end of the sacred writings, but I presume you are saying that the "spirit of the truth" guides you into all things, teaches you other things that are not in the Bible? Is this referenced anywhere in the Bible?
Again, genuine questions. I'm intrigued, and even slightly taken aback. :-)
PP
I first want to say that I actually feared that the thread would go this way - turn into a "you people (believers) are stupid and irrational and need to have your heads checked" fest . . . AGuest
Actually . . . I didn't feel this discussion had done anything of the sort prior to this comment. No offence intended here . . . but a little less of the thin skinned defensiveness placing the focus on a persons manner . . . and instead sticking to the issues, goes a long way to furthering a very interesting thread. Faith can't be defended by evidence . . . otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it? Unfortunately, defending belief based on faith, is by far the more difficult task . . . that's just the way it is.
I'm really interested in hearing more comments . . . try and leave each other alone and deal with content folks . . . please?
I first want to say that I actually feared that the thread would go this way - turn into a "you people (believers) are stupid and irrational and need to have your heads checked" fest . . . AGuest
Actually . . . I didn't feel this discussion had done anything of the sort prior to this comment - Sizemik
Neither did I
Faith can't be defended by evidence . . . otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it?
Agreed.
AGuest . . . In the light of this discussion . . . I have a sincere question for you.
In relation to your faith you explained it thus . . .
Faith, dear one. In the One who speaks to me, my Lord, the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA... who tells me of/shows me wonders I can't even barely articulate and of the One who sent him and whose image he bears, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH... of Armies. Based on what I've heard from him... and the realities he has told and shown me, I simply cannot DENY his existence... or that of the One he represents.
I have highlighted some phrases for this reason . . . It appears from these, that you have proof or evidence for your belief that is simply undeniable. With the possession of such undeniable evidence . . . how does there exist a need for faith? . . . specifically faith in the existence of God?
Without this undeniable evidence you acknowledge thus . . .
If I did not hear and see HIM... I would most probably come to conclude, as you have, that there is nothing outside of the physical universe. Praise JAH, that has not been my experience.
I'm being sincere here . . . it simply appears that you have no need for faith, as the evidence for your belief is conclusive and undeniable. I'm interested as to where and how one might obtain this evidence.
I for one, do not conclude that there is "nothing outside of the physical universe" . . . only that the evidence for traditionally held concepts of God and Christ based largely on faith and ancient writings . . . continues to lack conclusive evidence in the tide of increasing knowledge.
